How do you think the world would be different now without guns and bombs and everything else 2 do with ammo...

Answer 1

Each family unit, or clan, would be out hunting with sticks and rocks in order to kill their "grocery store provided" dinner.
There would be fewer humans on the planet because an equilibrium would have been established like there was back in the 1500's.
Colonies established would be very protective of their territory and wars would be fought with friendly neighbors over food and farmland.
Colonies would defer to their stronger native country and little social progress would be made.
Neighbor would kill neighbor over food scraps as the poplulation approached it's limit.
There would be no music videos, air travel, cars, I-Pods, or computers.
You wouldn't be asking this question.

Answer 2

Well initially it would probably be a bit more violent.

Criminals would have a more even chance against police and certainly against civilians. The civilian death rates would probably decrease in the longer term but injuries and such would increase correspondingly until people started to train themsevles for self defense.

War would become alot bloodier on both sides.

Armed forces have 5000 years of other means of conducting warfare and enforcing control to fall back on so pretty quickly there would be rapid fire crossbows as standard issue weapons on both sides.

Instead of nice happy limited war it would pretty much return to mass purges and a combination of the attrional warfare of the 1600's, and probably return to the the "total" war policies of US General Sherman and others.

Conditions would generally become less civil for those in war-zones, in the past, whole areas became depopulated by virtue of a local army "securing" the area. Many peoples died and suffered just because the army was scavanging resources and would not really suffer the locals to willingly so there were many instances where the populations were rounded up and shipped off to labor camps or killed to avoid the problem of insurgency etc. So that means slavery could become cool ... again.

Terrorism is a performance art largely. Certainly and radical groups can exert terroristic fear upon a population. But without automatic weapons or bombs, a constabulary force would have a better chance in reacting successfully to terrorist situations.

Initially message driven terrorism would however probably increase - the Al Qaeda's of the world would be able to plan and organize without impediment unless national interests prevailed - whether US or other state by interveneing directly, of course without a bomb or other such things - the performance arts of big show terrorism would revert to more localized militant political action - A la FARC, The Red Brigade or IRA, Al Qaeda would also pick targets based less on ideology and specatcle and more on results oriented stuff since you're performance for CNN /Al Jazeera just isn't what it used to be.

However, without bombs the only real threat to humanity would be environmental or biological or from an asteroid in nature. This would be very good thing.

The modern concept of "projection of force" would be obsolete.

Global non-localized war would probably not occur nearly as frequently as there would need to be huge armies and logistical support from some distant country with much higher casualty rates in the wars that did occur because most combat would be hand to hand or very close range.

So no "US/Iraqi or US/Iraqi/Kuaiti" style invasions,but many more Iran-Iraq type wars.

Answer 3

I could never imagine life without Americans

Answer 4

Rampant Crime, ask the British policeman!

Answer 5

No, because there is evil still in this world.